Aimpoint on an Ultimak Rail (AK)- QD or no QD?

So, I'm about to put an Aimpoint CompM2 on an Ultimak rail. The beauty of the setup is that it is lowlowlow, and you can cowitness with the irons. However, adding a QD ring raises it somewhat. My questions are:

1. Is a QD even needed? I mean, if the batteries die, I can still use the irons through the scope. How likely is the optic to be damaged so badly you can't even see through it?

2. What's the lowest QD mount you can get?

3. What about this setup:

http://www.swfa.com/pc-7732-506-aimpoint-x-wide-30mm-ring.aspx

Any reason that would not fit the bill of being very low AND quick-detach? Sure, it might not rezero, but if I'm ditching the optic, I really don't care about rezeroing...it's probably destroyed.

This is a semi-dupe of a thread in Accessories: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=289784

Thanks,

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Aimpoint on an Ultimak Rail (AK)- QD or no QD?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

benEzra

July 19, 2007, 10:40 AM

If you can cowitness the irons with the non-QD, but can't with the QD, I'd say the QD ring would actually be a drawback. If you can cowitness, it makes sighting in, and verifying zero, much easier, and if the electronics go kaput at a Really Bad Time, being able to use the irons with the sight in place is a lot faster than having to move your hands to fiddle with a QD setup first.

Mossyrock

July 19, 2007, 12:29 PM

In my case, I went with a non-QD because I COULD cowitness. I lock-tited the ring on and left it at that.

sharkhunter2018

July 19, 2007, 12:42 PM

I have the Aimpoint 30mm ring on my Ultimak (AK) and it works great. Its low enough to allow co-witness.

Don't Tread On Me

July 19, 2007, 01:18 PM

I use the Aimpoint ring also (not on an AK) and it is pretty much the lowest ring you can get. There might be other 30mm rings that are lower, but they won't be as wide (come as pairs for scopes).

It might not be a return-to-zero, but it will be close. I can't imagine it being more than 1-2moa off. I have a Nikon scope that I mount and dismount from a few different AR's when I am doing load development and testing for accuracy, it has Burris Zee rings and a cheesy Yankee Hill riser rail, on/off it is never more than 1" at 100 yards.

The Aimpoint ring is heavy duty. It also has a square post style screw that will fit snug and tight in a picatinny style rail (as opposed to a round screw). I really like the Aimpoint ring. The only thing that is better is the Larue mount, but it does not come in such a low mount.

Coronach

July 19, 2007, 03:50 PM

So, is the consensus that detaching the optic is not even needed, since you can see/sight through it? Or would you still set it up so that you can remove the sight?

Mike

Don't Tread On Me

July 19, 2007, 04:08 PM

I like having detachable optics for different reasons. I like to take them off when I hose the weapon down with brake cleaner. I like them to return to zero or as much as possible.

However, the idea that you'll notice "oh my God, my reddot is dead" in the heat of battle, and then detach it is crazy. Instead, you want co-witness and just start using irons. It is faster, a lot faster. The only thing that would prevent that is if you can't co-witness, forcing removal of optic, thus wasting time - OR if the optic is shattered and you can't co-witness even with irons. The thing that bugs me about screw on type detachables is that to get it tight enough to secure it to make my comfortable and confident is too tight for me to undo it with my fingers. I like throw levers better.

That's why on an AK, I like the side rail mounts that hug pretty low but still allow irons to be used. You have to shop around for a good side rail. 90% of them are overweight bulky peices of junk. There are some good ones that are very streamlined, lightweight and high quality. They cost around $90.

But I wouldn't be too paranoid about a shattered optic. Chances are the electronics or battery will die and you will lose the dot. Not have the glass break to the point where you can't see through it at all. Could happen, but would be rare.

Don't Tread On Me

July 19, 2007, 04:11 PM

Oh yeah I have one question, how hot does that Ultimak get? When I am blasting away with my AK ..that gas tube is nuclear! I can't imagine mounting an optic on that thing without frying it. I've always been paranoid about that. I can't get my hand anywhere near the gas tube due to the radiating heat. How does the optic escape the conduction of heat through the rail and ring as well as the heat wafting from the gas tube?

Don't mean it to be a threadjack.

Coronach

July 19, 2007, 09:48 PM

I'll let you know. :D

Mike

rbernie

July 20, 2007, 12:54 AM

I went with a Burris non-QD because I liked the extra height so that I can shoulder the rifle without having to drop my head. The heat has not proven to be an issue for the Aimpoint.

However, the idea that you'll notice "oh my God, my reddot is dead" in the heat of battle, and then detach it is crazy.

unless you have that Belarussian side-rail. Then you just flick the lever back and knock the thing off. :D

sharkhunter2018

July 20, 2007, 01:26 AM

My Aimpoint is mounted on the Aimpoint ring. Putting several mags thru in a row, it heats up real fast, but the heat doesnt seem to have any effect on it.

GunTech

July 20, 2007, 04:05 AM

rbernie, what make of AK is that.

For the lowest possible dot sight, you could use a Docter, JP ent or Burris Fast Fire. It mounts lower than any other dot sight, and has a built in Weaver compatible base. And it's small. I occasionally use mine on my M1A. It would be ideal for the Ultimak.

http://guntech.com/m14/m14-sight-1.jpg

http://guntech.com/m14/m14-sight-2.jpg

Coronach

July 20, 2007, 04:11 AM

You know, I actually think it might not sit as low as an Aimpoint. I think it is only fractionally lower than an OKO, and the OKO completely blocks the AK's irons. The Aimpoint does not.

I'd have to check to see, you might be right.

Mike

GunTech

July 20, 2007, 04:20 AM

Coronach,

I'm not using mine (FastFire) at the moment, if you want to give it a try. I'd bet monet it's lower than anything else out there. With the base the sight is 1.3 inches tall. The lowest part of the optic is 0.385 inches above the top of the Weaver or Picatinny rail.

Coronach

July 20, 2007, 04:27 AM

Check your PMs. ;) I'm always up for trying new gear.

Mike

gotm4

July 20, 2007, 07:50 AM

I use that same scope ring on my Aimpoint C3 on an UltiMak rail and the sights can be seen through the Aimpoint.

I used it for the 1st Larry Vickers AK class. The UltiMak never got hot enough to burn me.

I am thinking about getting another AK. Haven't kept up with who's imprting them in years. Is yours a 5.45 or 7.62? I'd like something like an AK-101 - updated AK74. I wish I could get 5.56 with plentiful magazine, as ammo would be greatly simplified.

Thanks, Tod

GunTech

July 20, 2007, 09:01 PM

Coronach,

PM received. Just post a review and picture of the Firesight on the Ultimak.

Tod

AK103K

July 20, 2007, 09:15 PM

I've had LaRue and ARMS lever mounts on a couple of my AK's. Neither would cowitness at the BSZ setting, but the ARMS could at the 400M setting on my Saiga. All of the lever mounts I've seen are made for the AR's and sit a tad high, even on the Ultimak.

I now use the low ring from Aimpoint that you show and it works very well. Its also $25 vs. $100-150 for the others. If you really had to have it off, its off quick enough with either a coin or strong hand.

gotm4

July 21, 2007, 07:32 AM

My AK is a SLR106FR (5.56x45mm aka .223)

rbernie

July 21, 2007, 02:40 PM

rbernie, what make of AK is that.
Converted Saiga 223 using Galil mags.

If you enjoyed reading about "Aimpoint on an Ultimak Rail (AK)- QD or no QD?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!